Legal humor. Seriously.

Law Firms

Thanks to Jim Dedman and the others at the award-winning products-liability blog Abnormal Use for reviewing The Emergency Sasquatch Ordinance, with a special thanks to Batten Farrar for his expert rendition of the cover. This is the second time crayons have been used to recreate it, and that seems entirely appropriate.

Also appropriate is the review's focus on the laws of the Carolinas, where their firm (Gallivan, White & Boyd) is located and which provided lots of material for the book. North Carolina's rattlesnake-milking tax was actually considered for the title spot, but we went with the Sasquatch ordinance instead. I suppose it would have been even harder to come up with a rattlesnake-milking-tax cover image.

Late last week Above the Law posted a memo leaked from inside Clifford Chance (non-lawyers: that's a law firm, not a guy named "Clifford Chance") that they described as one of the most sexist memos they'd ever seen.

At first glance, the memo doesn't seem to bear that out. It's just a list of presentation tips for younger associates, and a lot of the tips are pretty good ones. For example, there is no limit to the number of times people should be told NOT TO READ THEIR POWERPOINT SLIDES. DO NOT READ YOUR POWERPOINT SLIDES. NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THIS BUT HELL IS ACTUALLY NOTHING MORE THAN AN ETERNITY OF BEING FORCED TO SIT IN UNCOMFORTABLE CHAIRS WHILE SATAN READS AN ENDLESS SERIES OF UNINTERESTING POWERPOINT SLIDES.

So that's a pretty good tip.

And nothing sexist about it. Most of the tips are similarly neutral.

But then you get to the one about remembering not to "giggle." Well, some men do giggle—wait. Make sure the audience can't see up your skirt? Hm. Does Clifford Chance have any locations in Scotland? Doesn't look that way, but maybe—oh. Don't show "cleavage," "make sure you can stand in your heels," and try to sound like "Lauren Bacall, not Marilyn Monroe."

Okay then.

A broader issue with the memo is that, reportedly, it was presented by the firm's "Women's Committee" (which may or may not be comprised only of women) to female associates, and only to female associates, and the memo is said to have been entitled "Presentation Tips for Women." (The memo itself is untitled but this was likely the title of the presentation during which it was, perhaps unwisely, distributed.) This casts some of the facially neutral tips involved—such as, "practice hard words"—in a somewhat different light.

Again, it might be a good idea for everybody to "practice hard words." Words is hard! Especially for people like law firm graduates who are thrust out into the world with a mere 19 years of education. But if you are only asking your female associates to "practice hard words," well, that's pretty bad.

[Update: of course I meant "law school graduates." See how hard words is?]

Clifford Chance provided a statement to ATL in response to the memo story, saying in part that "[t]he original presentation and associated tips represented a personal perspective, shared with a group of colleagues.... [T]here is no Clifford Chance template on how people should present. The offense caused by a small percentage of the suggestions in the tip sheet was entirely unintentional." That's almost certainly true, but doesn't address the issue of unintentional sexism, which is a thing, you know.

Here's something else unintentional: the search results I got when I Googled "Clifford Chance" just now (though the image results were generated by a plugin):

Did you mean to search for "cleavage"?

Google's more sophisticated algorithm does not associate the firm with cleavage this strongly, it appears. Maybe someone or something at Google actually read the memo and thereby knew that "low plunge" tops are not approved presentation attire at the firm. "Wear a suit, not your party outfit," it instructs.

Partners can usually get away with violating a dress code, as long as they aren't being too outrageous. This is especially true of senior partners, and if the senior partner in question is also the Savior, well, He could wear whatever He wants whenever He wants to:

That is one truth depicted in this painting by artist Nathan Greene, entitled "The Senior Partner." A note on this website (where you can also buy copies of this and other works by Mr. Greene) confirms that Jesus is in fact the titular "Senior Partner," although we could probably have guessed that—it's not like anybody would make Him go through a job interview or depict Him doing such.

The message is simply that for Christians, Jesus is involved in all facets of life. An admirable message and one protected by the First Amendment. The website does go on to suggest that "[d]isplaying this piece prominently in your business will convey your Christian principles and values to your business associates, customers, and staff." It certainly would do that, and depending on the business, it might also get you sued or at least serve as evidence if you get sued for religious discrimination. Replace the Savior's image with one of Vishnu or Muhammad or whoever and imagine this hanging in your managing partner's office, or in all the partners' offices, and you might have a better sense of the problem.

Don't actually replace it with an image of Muhammad, please. That is just a thought experiment.

Yes, the dress-code exception would also extend to hairstyles, although in our experience that hasn't been much of a problem. We did just "encourage" a new associate to lose the ponytail, but he could have kept it if he'd really wanted to. But again, if the Senior Partner wishes to show up in a mullet, or whatever, that would be totally His prerogative.

* All candidates are allowed to begin a paid contract legal assignment at $20.00/hour. If you apply you will be given an assignment.

* Each day the candidate with the weakest work product will be cut until one candidate remains. This process will take one or two weeks until the final candidate is offered on-going employment. If you have seen reality television shows where contestants are cut from episode to episode such as Top Chef, Top Shot or Project Runway -- it will be like this. Do you have what it takes to be Top Associate?

Do you have a soul?

Certainly the most important part of any hiring process is to crush the candidate's spirit right at the outset. This one potentially takes a couple of weeks to do that, but still should be quite effective.

According to the ad (which appeared on Craigslist recently), the firm was taking applications only until October 5, but you still might want to show up and personally humiliate all the existing candidates until they are too traumatized to return. They'd probably look quite favorably on you at that point.

Those of you who have ever slogged or are currently slogging through a document-review project, which I suppose includes most lawyers on Earth, may want to check out a new web series on Bitter Lawyer called "The Bottom Rung." The first episode was posted today.

The series was created by Matt Ritter, a 2005 University of Pennsylvania grad who enjoyed big-firm "life" for a while before fleeing to comedy. (You can see Matt's left ear and part of his neck in this picture, which for obvious reasons features co-star/producer Jess Garvey instead. But his whole face does appear a number of times in the actual episode.) The style is reminiscent of "The Office," as is the fact that none of the characters are exactly at the apex of their professional lives.

Or maybe they are. One of the series' main characters, played by Eddie Pepitone, has apparently been doing doc review for many years and is really enjoying life at this point. Or as Matt describes it, "[h]is character likes nothing more than to remind the dreamers that they cannot escape document review and that they will die down there." That character is not really in the first episode but clearly has great potential.

If you have been thinking that the public's general impression of lawyers is way too high, and would like to bring it down a few notches, here's an idea: for Halloween, dress up as some of the people you helped evict from their homes.

Nothing could be further from the truth

A former employee of the Steven J. Baum law firm in New York recently sent this and some similar pictures to the New York Times, saying they were taken at last year's Halloween party. According to the report, the firm specializes in foreclosures and evictions and is the biggest such firm in New York. As you can see, the two employees in this picture are dressed like homeless people, presumably people their firm helped make homeless. Parts of the firm's office were set up to look like homeless camps.

At first glance, it may seem like these employees dress in attire that mocks or attempts to belittle the plight of those who have lost their homes. But that's not what's going on here, according to a spokesman for the firm. "It has been suggested that some employees dress in ... attire that mocks or attempts to belittle the plight of those who have lost their homes," the Times quoted him as saying. "Nothing could be further from the truth." Well, that's settled then. If there was something closer to the truth, though, he apparently didn't mention that thing in his statement.

Now, I am not above making fun of a homeless person, although after running a few searches it appears that I never have. I did write this 2009 post about "Blanket Man," a homeless New Zealander who was arrested for indecent exposure but was released after agreeing to wear underpants under his blanket. But that was because of the odd bail condition, not the homelessness. (Also his lawyer's argument that the exposure wasn't intentional: "He wears high-risk clothing. It's a way of life rather than a deliberate attempt at lewdness." That one's never worked for me but this judge bought it.) Also, I did not assist in any way in putting Blanket Man out on the street to begin with.

I don't think you engage in what's pictured above unless you're telling yourself that all homeless people necessarily deserve it, but nothing could be further from the truth.

What better item for a law-firm associate's office than this office chair made from the ejection seat of a Royal Navy bomber? Perfect for those occasions when you already have more work than you can handle, it's late Friday afternoon, and coming down the hall is that partner who only speaks to you when he or she needs something done.

Sure, maybe the partner will just pass by your office and then you'll have wasted a perfectly good ejection seat, but sometimes it's better to be safe than sorry.

This item is being offered for sale at When It's Gone It's Gone; I saw it at Neatorama. The latter says it would come in handy when "your TPS reports are overdue," and that's certainly also true.

Of course, once you make partner, then it's time for the Lord Vader Imperial Office Set. Which I'm sure comes with a tractor beam in case associates try to eject.

What does one do "after conquering Silicon Valley"? Well, one option is to go to law school, although personally if I had conquered that particular area I would go ahead and retire. But not Gregory Berry, whose restless mind took him on to new challenges.

After a "remarkable career" in software engineering, Berry graduated from the University of Pennsylvania's law school and took a job with Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman in New York, where he "immediately began doing superlative work." Indeed, "in virtually every assignment Mr. Berry was given, he went above and beyond the call of duty, pointing out better ways to proceed, inefficiencies, observations, and ways to get a better result for KBTF clients." Yet by April 2011, he found himself without assignments. "Having worked for KBTF for six months, Mr. Berry had assessed the situation. He saw that he would be of far more value to KBTF if he was given more responsibility," and sought to make that happen.

By the way, all quotations in this post are the words of Gregory Berry himself, as set forth in his complaint. Including this one, which is part of an email he composed in order to seek the aforementioned responsibility.

I am writing to see if you have any small cases I could manage for you. It has become clear that the only limiting factor on how much value I am to a case is how much responsibility I am given: the more responsibility I am given, the better the outcome. I am in kind of an uncomfortable position at the firm because although I am a "first year," I have 15 years business and real world experience, as much as many senior associates. When I first got here I did not know what to expect, but after working here for several months now it has become clear that I have as much experience and ability as an associate many years my senior, as much skill [in] writing, and a superior legal mind to most I have met.

Emphasis added. Yet within a month of the composition of said message, which was sent to 12 partners, Gregory Berry was, to his apparent surprise, no longer employed.

Berry is now suing KBTF, alleging 14 causes of action, and seeking not less than $77.55 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

It is possible to sympathize with Mr. Berry on a number of levels, including his extreme distaste for document-review projects, his frustration at the inefficiencies of traditional law practice and his chafing at the limitations on a first-year associate, especially one who has the type of business and real-world experience that he claims to have. (I could not find any references to his distinguished career in Silicon Valley, but so far I have only Googled this, and have no reason to dispute his claims in that regard. Except I guess to say that if Silicon Valley had been conquered, Silicon Valley would probably have noticed it.) It would also not be entirely surprising, though, to find that some more senior lawyers may have reasonably confused what Mr. Berry sees as simple statements of fact with unwarranted arrogance.

KBTF has characterized the suit as "frivolous," and only time will tell.

The Guardian reports that some London law firms have what it called "little bedrooms" where lawyers can sleep, if that's allowed at all, while working around the clock on major deals. Some of the "little bedrooms" apparently look like this:

Fire one!

That's not a bedroom, it's a torpedo tube.

This actually appears to be a picture of a Japanese "capsule hotel," not a law firm's sleeping arrangements, but according to the article some firms do have sleeping areas that look like this. Others have rooms with single beds, rooms that presumably are also furnished with a chair and something to hang yourself from.

Inevitably, the article quotes a couple of lawyers who make working around the clock sound like no big deal. "At times it's a slog," said one, "but there's also this tremendous sense of togetherness among those who share the experience." Maybe so, but then again the guy saying this is a partner, and so it's highly unlikely that he's sharing this particular experience these days.

An alternative view can be found in this post, by a therapist who has written a series of posts for Above the Law, many of which seem to be about the effects of sleep deprivation on his lawyer clients. His view seems a little too harsh - at least at our firm, we don't actually try to "destroy" associates, crushing their spirit until they end up looking like "Gollum losing the One Ring." (Though I guess I have noticed some of them starting to slouch a little.) I'm sure there are partners who laugh in secret about the idea of "work-life balance," and the billable hour can be pretty soul-crushing, but on the whole we aren't Ringwraiths. Still, there is too much truth in what he says.

At one time or another, we have all had to work longer hours than we would like, and sometimes there's just no way around it. But that has to be temporary, and you have to hang onto your actual life. At some point, the stress is just not worth it.

I'm just saying that if you ever find yourself sleeping in a tube, you have probably reached that point.

I mentioned in February that lawyers for a Florida man were arguing he should not be held responsible for murder partly because he had committed it under the influence of Red Bull, and that prosecutors appeared to agree. The man's brother was not too keen on this argument, mostly since the victim was their father, and prosecutors agreed to take a second look. But they didn't change their minds, and last month a judge ruled that Stephen Coffeen was not guilty by reason of insanity because he didn't understand at the time he acted that smothering his dad with a pillow was wrong.

Reports said that two doctors hired by the prosecution had agreed with defense experts that Coffeen had been temporarily insane. In accepting their reports and a plea bargain, the judge stated that "this case is not and never has been about Red Bull." It never has been entirely about Red Bull, but that was part of the argument originally -- Coffeen supposedly had a psychotic break due to lack of sleep and too much caffeine (from Red Bull), and a doctor who testified at a bond hearing said that as far as he knew, Coffeen had no underlying mental disorder. The other doctors may have reached a different conclusion about that, of course, but their reports are sealed.

Under the judge's order, Coffeen is off to a mental hospital for evaluation and his status will be reviewed in December. His lawyers say that he is already mentally well -- it was temporary insanity, remember -- and so it seems entirely possible that he'll be free by Christmas. He probably should not be expecting any invitations from his brother, though.